On the surface, Hong Kong Island is stable and one of the safest places in the world, but behind it there is a huge crisis, with a bunch of Western lackeys in schools and licking dogs in the judiciary.

The goal of the lackeys is to brainwash the students and make them hostile to the country, and the purpose of licking the dogs is to support the brainwashed students and support the "legal principles" at critical times.

This shows that the British still have a strong control over Hong Kong Island, but on the other hand, it also shows that there are problems in the country's control of Hong Kong Island.

Or is it the same sentence, the premise of the two systems is one country, this is the basic, it cannot be ignored, the legislature is British, this violates the basic of a country, even Western laws do not have such provisions, right?

There is also school education, those who promote how China is have violated the country's bottom line, is it that British schools are also a group of teachers who tell students that the British are a group of robbers?

Of course, there are reasons why the state ignores these two aspects, one is that the country does not understand the Western system, at least in this time period, it is not familiar with it, if you ask a question to people in China at this time, who is the biggest in the United States?

Everyone will definitely answer: of course it is the president, he can fight whoever he wants.

But the president is also limited by Congress, and some proposals will be vetoed if they violate the interests of Congress, but most of the time Congress will not appear next year, and there is no direct control over the country.

In addition to the president and Congress is the Supreme Court, which is a more inconspicuous institution, usually there are only seven justices, and when they have nothing to do, they read books and drink some red wine, and their lives are very leisurely, as if there is no such leisurely work in the world.

But don't underestimate this supreme court, they have the highest power of the government in their hands, that is, the final interpretation and adjudication of the law, that is to say, the laws of this country are decided by them, and theoretically they follow the law.

For example, in a previous life, there were two presidential candidates who ran for president, and the last side won, but when they checked the votes, they found that the losing side had more votes than the winning side, and the other side had tens of thousands more votes.

Elections in the United States are not based on who gets the most votes, but on an electoral system, with each state giving several electoral seats, and the 50 states in the country have almost 255 electoral votes.

Then the voters in each state start voting, and once a certain person wins, then all the electoral votes of that state are added to the winning side, and the winner is the one with the most electoral votes.

There is a problem, for example, if a person loses by a narrow margin in a certain state, and the electoral vote is won by the other party, to the victory of the opponent in another state by a large margin, it seems that they are tied, but in fact the votes of the two people are very different, and similarly, the last loser also has the possibility of more votes than the winner, what happens when this happens?

After all, the Americans flaunt democracy, but the loser has fewer electoral votes, and there is a conflict between the two, and the loser is not convinced, and the winner is not convinced, and the law of the United States is not yet in the form of regulations, and what should we do if there has never been such a situation in history? At this time, it will be handed over to the justices to settle the matter.

It can be said that at this time, the choice of the president of the United States fell into the hands of the seven judges, they said that Zhang San is Zhang San, and said that Wang Er Mazi is Wang Er Mazi, and you can't accept it, because the law says that you have to listen to the seven justices at this time.

This is the so-called final interpretation of the law, which is useless in normal times, but at the critical moment, the role of this institution is revealed, which is enough to override the government, and later Hong Kong Island implemented a similar system, obviously they are not right in this matter, but those judges say that he is right, and you can't accept it.

Liu Lang is not against this system, after all, Hong Kong Island adopts Western law, and the two systems are manifested in this, but as a regional judicial body, Hong Kong Islanders must serve as the judicial body, but in fact it is the opposite.

Hong Kong Island's judiciary has long been dominated by non-Hong Kong judges, most of whom are foreign nationals.

In his previous life, Liu Lang had read the relevant news that among the permanent and non-permanent justices appointed to the new Court of Final Appeal in 2016, only two of the 17 justices were Hong Kong nationals, and the rest were foreign nationals or dual nationals.

Hong Kong Island's judiciary has always been controlled by foreigners, and the reason is related to the British colonial history, a legacy that was not resolved until Liu Lang's rebirth.

As early as 2014, during the occupation of Central on Hong Kong Island, the controversial "Seven Police Incident" occurred.

In fact, there is no dispute at the level of facts, and the Hong Kong Island separatist leaders provoked 11 police officers with feces and urine during these incidents, and then resisted arrest.

After being assaulted and insulted, the police assaulted Zeng Jianchao and was photographed, Zeng Jianchao was unharmed but refused to take photos to record the injuries, but the outcome of the judicial decision caused a huge controversy.

Foreign judge Du Dapi sentenced seven police officers to two years in prison, while the ringleader was sentenced to five weeks in prison and released on $300 bail.

What kind of verdict is this? If the same thing had happened in Britain, I am afraid that this leader would not even have a chance to stand up and accept the verdict, and he would have been beaten and crippled.

At that time, the lawyer on the police side said that as a lawyer, he abided by the court's verdict, but he really couldn't help but talk about his feelings: "I think the two-year sentence is too heavy, if we look back at some past cases, the lightest case of assault causing bodily injury is a community service order, and then you can be sentenced to two or three weeks, or even two or three months in prison, which is quite far from the two-year sentence."

Some people will feel that throwing bricks has destroyed our social welfare and our social peace, and may cause people to lose their lives at any time, and they are sentenced to probation orders. ”

He thinks that the police should of course abide by the court's decision, but he also wants everyone to think about it with him, but these words are useless.

There is a characteristic of judicial decisions on Hong Kong Island: Even if a person actually commits atrocities, as long as he flaunts the banner of democracy and fighting for human rights, he will be favored by the law; correspondingly, the police can only be cautious.

By contrast, the US police in 2011 during the "Occupy Wall Street" movement showed no mercy to the demonstrators who tried to attack them.

From back throws, punches, flying kicks, to throwing out of the fence, the moves used are all fighting techniques, and then they are cuffed on the spot, and even those demonstrators who have already given in are asked to lie on the ground and be sprayed with pepper water by the police.